About Me

I was born into the Catholic faith. At 14, I was "born again" and found Jesus personally but lost His Church. After thirty years as an evangelical protestant, I have come full circle to find that He has been there all the time, in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I wish others to find the beauty and truth of the Catholic faith as I have found.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Holy Smokes! Bad Popes! What's Next?

The news media continues its full frontal assault on Catholicism and in particular the papacy.Newsweek has a "nice" on-line feature highlighting the deeds of the worse popes. They even re-iterate the damning secret that Pope Benedict was part of Hitler's Youth! (as was the majority of young people during Hitler's reign)What they don't seem to mention is that in almost 2000 years there were less than 10 really really bad popes. Furthermore, despite these really bad popes making bad political/economic decisions, not one of them re-wrote the creed, contradicted the apostles teaching or made changes in the faith and morals of Christianity.

For example, even the worse pope, Alexander, didn't suddenly declare that it was ok to have mistresses(despite his having several), or that the Eucharist wasn't really the body and blood of Christ. There was something that prevented the worst of the worst from changing Christ's teachings to the Church on faith and morals. That little something is called papal infallibility.I believe that these reminders by the secular press of the "baaaaad" popes further manifests this divine principle. Jesus promised the Church he would send His spirit to lead it in all truth, but he chose a bunch of sinful men to do it. Despite the worst despotic, lecherous popes, none of them changed foundational principles of Christianity as some of the reformers did in just a few short years. (For example, Zwingli denying the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist saying "it's only a symbol.")Come to think of it, why didn't God just appoint angels to be bishops and popes and avoid this whole scandalous mess? Oh yeah, I forgot. There was that one pesky angel called Lucifer.....

Clearly, Christ entrusted the role of Apostle to weak, even at times wicked men, But does that fact somehow disqualify them from fulfilling the purpose for which He called them? Of course not. God's grace is more powerful than man's sin, and the same is true when it comes to the papacy.

Yes, there have been some wicked popes. Corruption, immorality, even murder, were sins committed by some bishops of Rome. But what does that prove, except that they, like the Apostles, were not always faithful to the graces God gave them? This is true of all of us, to one extent or another. The fact that there have been bad popes -- and that's a fact no Catholic disputes -- does not disprove the doctrine of the papacy.

. . . The fact is, most of the popes have been good -- even heroically good -- men. They have been, on the whole, good examples of Christian virtue and perseverance in the apostolate. That fact is very easily forgotten by critics of the papacy.

This is just plain silly to claim there were only 10 really bad popes. This oft-repeated piece of RC propaganda is disingenuous. For centuries, the papacy was routinely bought and sold to the highest bidder or shamelessly given to degenerate, carnal relatives or family members.

As the Scripture says, "You shall know them by their fruits." For a time, I was misled by this RC nonsense, not having seriously considered the evidence which roundly disputes their claims. But thank God he brought me firmly back into the Protestant camp!

Roman Catholics (especially evangelical converts), remember: Pedigree does not guarantee authentic Christianity. Recall that the Old Testament church in Elijah's day had a "pedigree" but was completely given over to idolatry. God declared he had reserved seven thousand to himself who had not bent the knee to Baal.

Clearly, Christ entrusted the role of Apostle to weak, even at times wicked men, But does that fact somehow disqualify them from fulfilling the purpose for which He called them? Of course not. God's grace is more powerful than man's sin, and the same is true when it comes to the papacy.

Yes, there have been some wicked popes. Corruption, immorality, even murder, were sins committed by some bishops of Rome. But what does that prove, except that they, like the Apostles, were not always faithful to the graces God gave them? This is true of all of us, to one extent or another. The fact that there have been bad popes -- and that's a fact no Catholic disputes -- does not disprove the doctrine of the papacy.

. . . The fact is, most of the popes have been good -- even heroically good -- men. They have been, on the whole, good examples of Christian virtue and perseverance in the apostolate. That fact is very easily forgotten by critics of the papacy.

Dear Tiber Jumper:"They have been, on the whole, good examples of Christian virtue and perseverance in the apostolate. That fact is very easily forgotten by critics of the papacy."

I suppose it all depends on one's view of what is "good." Most RCs I've met, for example, were enamored with John Paul II. A dispassionate observer, though, when viewing his papacy, would say that he encouraged idolatrous activity at Assisi in 1986 (and later as well). If Scripture is viewed as a barometer of goodness, one could rightly say that Mr. Wojtyla committed idolatry by allowing a statue of Buddha to be placed on the altar. Do you think it's sacrilegious to place a statue of Buddha on the altar? What if this occurred in your local parish? Would you object?

All one really has to do is go online to New Advent encyclopedia, bring up a list of the RC popes, and then begin reading New Advent's article on each pope. An unbiased person would say that the papacy has been a fairly corrupt institution, overall.

The fact that you think there were more than 10 bad popes further proves to me that the Catholic Church is the true Church Jesus started. Why? Because despite the sinfulness of its popes, the Truth never changed and remains the same for 2000 years. Your religion(protestantism) continually morphs and changes regarding issues of faith and morals. The worse popes we have ever had never denied a theological truth or proposed a new definition of marriage or approved of divorce. Yet within 100 years of the reformation(rebellion) there were over 200 definitions of what the Lord's supper was. The doctrines of protestantism changed as fast as each pastor could change his mind based on his interpretation of the bible. Baptism is symbolic, some baptize infants, others don't etc etc. The further your religion devolved from Catholicism , the more immoral your religion became. Marriage is no longer between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is not a sin(lutherans, anglicans, methodists). God is whatever you want him to be (unitarians)Contraception and abortion are all acceptable. Divorce is acceptable etc etc. You lecture me by telling me you will know a tree by the fruit it bears. Well, brother, despite our human and sinful popes, Catholicism has never changed regarding faith and morals. Your "tree of protestantism" with no authority has lead to some very rotten fruit. Contraception, abortion, same-sex "marriage" and false ever-evolving theology. Burger-king Christianity, Have It your Way! No thanks, prince, I'll take Catholicism, the ancient faith that gave us the Creeds and Holy Scripture despite some bad popes. You can have Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin and the thousands of heretics after them who decide by their own authority what is true, and how they should live, which changes almost daily based on the prevailing winds.

It was not a consecrated altar. It was a table set up outside (there were several such "prayer areas").

And it wasn't just Buddhists, either. The World Day of Prayer for Peace was organized by Pope John Paul II, but it was not a "Catholic" event. Representatives from all major religions were invited to come and pray for peace in their own way. 120 accepted the invitation. So there were Greek Orthodox and Muslims and Baptists, etc - all praying and worshiping in their own way, in their own languages, with their own sacred texts and images. They took turns using these outside areas. Even the Buddhists got a turn.

If the pope is at an interreligious meeting and a statue of buddha is placed on a prayer table, not an altar, why do you have to assume that he is worhipping an idol? Why does that qualify him as an idolater and therefore all of Catholicism is false?

Do you think St Paul was a hypocrite when he said "To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law."

Can you see how your blinding hatred of Catholicism prevents you from seeing anything in an objective fashion?

Do you even consider the fact that you are bearing false witness by saying such things about Pope John Paul 2? Can you judge the man's heart?

What other excuses will you try to find to prevent you returning from the true Church of Jesus Christ founded on Christ and promulgated by his apostles and vicars(popes)?

Here's the objective answer to your question; Yes I would object if a priest placed a statue of buddha on the altar. But it doesn't bother me that a pope attends a inter-religious prayer service for World Peace, which was not initiated by Catholics, BTW.

Does it bother you that your pastors support homosexual marriage, contraception, abortion?

If you pastor tells you it is ok to contracept, even though all of Christendom viewed it as a grave evil until 1939, do you still stay protestant? (Remember Val, both Luther and Calvin condemned contraception as evil and immoral, so why do you accept and practice it?)

Since protestantism supports homosexual unions will you quit protestantism?

Why is it you refuse to acknowledge that protestantism supports all matter of objective evil by using sola scriptura and yet continue to criticize Catholicism because 10 out of 274 popes were stinkers? Yet not one of those lecherous popes ever advocated heresy! Why? because of infallibility conferred upon the vicar of Christ by Jesus himself.

Val, go to confession and come back to the Church. Jesus is calling you home.

Another thought:Even if it was an altar, it does not indicate that JP2 approved nor that he worshipped the buddha.Why would you honestly think that the leader of Christendom would worship buddha?

READ THIS:

"Just remember though that even if the Pope allows non-Catholics to worship their gods on sacred ground and/or pray to them on sacred grounds (or other type of religious ceremony) it does not affect the indefectibility of the Church or the infallibility of the Pope on faith and morals; simply a mistake that had good intentions but a scandal nonetheless - the Pope is not suppose to be impeccable."

“It was not a consecrated altar. It was a table set up outside (there were several such 'prayer areas').”

“Even if it was an altar, it does not indicate that JP2 approved nor that he worshipped the buddha.”

“But it doesn't bother me that a pope attends a inter-religious prayer service for World Peace...”

I can't believe I'm hearing a Roman Catholic say this. (Actually, I'm not surprised at all!) So are you saying, Tiber Jumper, that if, for instance, your local parish priest were to hold an inter-religious “prayer” service inside your parish church with shamans, witch doctors, snake handlers, animists, Zoroastrians, Shintoists, Muslims, Buddhists, and voodoo priests, you would not object?

I'm forced to conclude, if your view is representative (and I believe it is the view held by most Vatican II Roman Catholics) that Vatican II catholics truly cannot claim the “catholic” label for themselves any longer. The true Roman Catholics are the SSPXers and the sedevacantists like Gerry Matatics, who practice real catholicism (pre-Vatican II catholicism) and would never tolerate this sort of syncretism. But by first asserting that “it wasn't a consecrated altar—it was a table,” you're truly arguing like the Pharisees, who said that “If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.” Who cares whether the Buddha was placed on an altar or a table? The fact is, it occurred in the Franciscan basilica in Assisi. Don't Roman Catholics consider the basilica holy and dedicated to God? Have you ever wondered why an earthquake took place in Assisi in 1997?

Do you think that the “prayers” the heathen made at Assisi were truly prayers? According to St. Paul, “No, I mean that what they [the heathen] sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons.”

Repeat: “I do not want you to become participants with demons.”

You said:

“Does it bother you that your pastors support homosexual marriage, contraception, abortion?”

Another straw man that RCs are so fond of using. You think that liberal Protestants represent us Protestants who hold to the faith. It's like me saying that so-called “catholics” who are pushing for women's ordination and birth control are true catholics. Please, you must do better than this.

The conservative Protestant churches I go to (Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed) don't support homosexuality or abortion (I will grant you that they don't make rulings about contraception. Personally, I don't believe in contraception. It's against God's Word.)

Since you brought up homosexuality: There have been a few studies which have shown that, in the Roman Catholic church, the percentage of priests who are homosexual is at least 30 percent. Maybe 40 percent. From my observation, I would guesstimate the number of homosexual priests to be probably in the 40 to 50 percent range. The RC priesthood provides an attractive profession for a homosexual male. He at once has a profession which commands respect and which also shields him from people asking him why he isn't married. Plus, among other priests, he finds a culture and climate which is accepting and even affirming of his homosexuality. What better place to be for a homosexual male?

This is probably why heterosexual men drop out in such large numbers from seminary studies for the priesthood. What normal guy would feel at home in such a homosexually oriented environment? I know that personally I would find it very uncomfortable.

As to your call for me to return to “mother church,” I simply reply with Calvin's “Reply to Sadoleto,” which he penned for the city of Geneva when the RC church was treacherously attempting to seduce the city back into the papalist fold.

Today was Reformation Sunday. Thank God that he sent us the blessed Reformation and restored the true Gospel!

“It was not a consecrated altar. It was a table set up outside (there were several such 'prayer areas').”

“Even if it was an altar, it does not indicate that JP2 approved nor that he worshipped the buddha.”

“But it doesn't bother me that a pope attends a inter-religious prayer service for World Peace...”

I can't believe I'm hearing a Roman Catholic say this. (Actually, I'm not surprised at all!) So are you saying, Tiber Jumper, that if, for instance, your local parish priest were to hold an inter-religious “prayer” service inside your parish church with shamans, witch doctors, snake handlers, animists, Zoroastrians, Shintoists, Muslims, Buddhists, and voodoo priests, you would not object?

I'm forced to conclude, if your view is representative (and I believe it is the view held by most Vatican II Roman Catholics) that Vatican II catholics truly cannot claim the “catholic” label for themselves any longer. The true Roman Catholics are the SSPXers and the sedevacantists like Gerry Matatics, who practice real catholicism (pre-Vatican II catholicism) and would never tolerate this sort of syncretism. But by first asserting that “it wasn't a consecrated altar—it was a table,” you're truly arguing like the Pharisees, who said that “If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.” Who cares whether the Buddha was placed on an altar or a table? The fact is, it occurred in the Franciscan basilica in Assisi. Don't Roman Catholics consider the basilica holy and dedicated to God? Have you ever wondered why an earthquake took place in Assisi in 1997?

Do you think that the “prayers” the heathen made at Assisi were truly prayers? According to St. Paul, “No, I mean that what they [the heathen] sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons.”

Repeat: “I do not want you to become participants with demons.”

You said:

“Does it bother you that your pastors support homosexual marriage, contraception, abortion?”

Another straw man that RCs are so fond of using. You think that liberal Protestants represent us Protestants who hold to the faith. It's like me saying that so-called “catholics” who are pushing for women's ordination and birth control are true catholics. Please, you must do better than this.

The conservative Protestant churches I go to (Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed) don't support homosexuality or abortion (I will grant you that they don't make rulings about contraception. Personally, I don't believe in contraception. It's against God's Word.)

Since you brought up homosexuality: There have been a few studies which have shown that, in the Roman Catholic church, the percentage of priests who are homosexual is at least 30 percent. Maybe 40 percent. From my observation, I would guesstimate the number of homosexual priests to be probably in the 40 to 50 percent range. The RC priesthood provides an attractive profession for a homosexual male. He at once has a profession which commands respect and which also shields him from people asking him why he isn't married. Plus, among other priests, he finds a culture and climate which is accepting and even affirming of his homosexuality. What better place to be for a homosexual male?

This is probably why heterosexual men drop out in such large numbers from seminary studies for the priesthood. What normal guy would feel at home in such a homosexually oriented environment? I know that personally I would find it very uncomfortable.

As to your call for me to return to “mother church,” I simply reply with Calvin's “Reply to Sadoleto,” which he penned for the city of Geneva when the RC church was treacherously attempting to seduce the city back into the papalist fold.

Today was Reformation Sunday. Thank God that he sent us the blessed Reformation and restored the true Gospel!

“It was not a consecrated altar. It was a table set up outside (there were several such 'prayer areas').”

“Even if it was an altar, it does not indicate that JP2 approved nor that he worshipped the buddha.”

“But it doesn't bother me that a pope attends a inter-religious prayer service for World Peace...”

I can't believe I'm hearing a Roman Catholic say this. (Actually, I'm not surprised at all!) So are you saying, Tiber Jumper, that if, for instance, your local parish priest were to hold an inter-religious “prayer” service inside your parish church with shamans, witch doctors, snake handlers, animists, Zoroastrians, Shintoists, Muslims, Buddhists, and voodoo priests, you would not object?

I'm forced to conclude, if your view is representative (and I believe it is the view held by most Vatican II Roman Catholics) that Vatican II catholics truly cannot claim the “catholic” label for themselves any longer. The true Roman Catholics are the SSPXers and the sedevacantists like Gerry Matatics, who practice real catholicism (pre-Vatican II catholicism) and would never tolerate this sort of syncretism. But by first asserting that “it wasn't a consecrated altar—it was a table,” you're truly arguing like the Pharisees, who said that “If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.” Who cares whether the Buddha was placed on an altar or a table? The fact is, it occurred in the Franciscan basilica in Assisi. Don't Roman Catholics consider the basilica holy and dedicated to God? Have you ever wondered why an earthquake took place in Assisi in 1997?

Do you think that the “prayers” the heathen made at Assisi were truly prayers? According to St. Paul, “No, I mean that what they [the heathen] sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons.”

Repeat: “I do not want you to become participants with demons.”

You said:

“Does it bother you that your pastors support homosexual marriage, contraception, abortion?”

Another straw man that RCs are so fond of using. You think that liberal Protestants represent us Protestants who hold to the faith. It's like me saying that so-called “catholics” who are pushing for women's ordination and birth control are true catholics. Please, you must do better than this.

The conservative Protestant churches I go to (Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed) don't support homosexuality or abortion (I will grant you that they don't make rulings about contraception. Personally, I don't believe in contraception. It's against God's Word.)

Since you brought up homosexuality: There have been a few studies which have shown that, in the Roman Catholic church, the percentage of priests who are homosexual is at least 30 percent. Maybe 40 percent. From my observation, I would guesstimate the number of homosexual priests to be probably in the 40 to 50 percent range. The RC priesthood provides an attractive profession for a homosexual male. He at once has a profession which commands respect and which also shields him from people asking him why he isn't married. Plus, among other priests, he finds a culture and climate which is accepting and even affirming of his homosexuality. What better place to be for a homosexual male?

This is probably why heterosexual men drop out in such large numbers from seminary studies for the priesthood. What normal guy would feel at home in such a homosexually oriented environment? I know that personally I would find it very uncomfortable.

As to your call for me to return to “mother church,” I simply reply with Calvin's “Reply to Sadoleto,” which he penned for the city of Geneva when the RC church was treacherously attempting to seduce the city back into the papalist fold.

Today was Reformation Sunday. Thank God that he sent us the blessed Reformation and restored the true Gospel!

“It was not a consecrated altar. It was a table set up outside (there were several such 'prayer areas').”

“Even if it was an altar, it does not indicate that JP2 approved nor that he worshipped the buddha.”

“But it doesn't bother me that a pope attends a inter-religious prayer service for World Peace...”

I can't believe I'm hearing a Roman Catholic say this. (Actually, I'm not surprised at all!) So are you saying, Tiber Jumper, that if, for instance, your local parish priest were to hold an inter-religious “prayer” service inside your parish church with shamans, witch doctors, snake handlers, animists, Zoroastrians, Shintoists, Muslims, Buddhists, and voodoo priests, you would not object?

I'm forced to conclude, if your view is representative (and I believe it is the view held by most Vatican II Roman Catholics) that Vatican II catholics truly cannot claim the “catholic” label for themselves any longer. The true Roman Catholics are the SSPXers and the sedevacantists like Gerry Matatics, who practice real catholicism (pre-Vatican II catholicism) and would never tolerate this sort of syncretism. But by first asserting that “it wasn't a consecrated altar—it was a table,” you're truly arguing like the Pharisees, who said that “If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.” Who cares whether the Buddha was placed on an altar or a table? The fact is, it occurred in the Franciscan basilica in Assisi. Don't Roman Catholics consider the basilica holy and dedicated to God? Have you ever wondered why an earthquake took place in Assisi in 1997?

Do you think that the “prayers” the heathen made at Assisi were truly prayers? According to St. Paul, “No, I mean that what they [the heathen] sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons.”

Repeat: “I do not want you to become participants with demons.”

You said:

“Does it bother you that your pastors support homosexual marriage, contraception, abortion?”

Another straw man that RCs are so fond of using. You think that liberal Protestants represent us Protestants who hold to the faith. It's like me saying that so-called “catholics” who are pushing for women's ordination and birth control are true catholics. Please, you must do better than this.

The conservative Protestant churches I go to (Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed) don't support homosexuality or abortion (I will grant you that they don't make rulings about contraception. Personally, I don't believe in contraception. It's against God's Word.)

“It was not a consecrated altar. It was a table set up outside (there were several such 'prayer areas').”

“Even if it was an altar, it does not indicate that JP2 approved nor that he worshipped the buddha.”

“But it doesn't bother me that a pope attends a inter-religious prayer service for World Peace...”

I can't believe I'm hearing a Roman Catholic say this. (Actually, I'm not surprised at all!) So are you saying, Tiber Jumper, that if, for instance, your local parish priest were to hold an inter-religious “prayer” service inside your parish church with shamans, witch doctors, snake handlers, animists, Zoroastrians, Shintoists, Muslims, Buddhists, and voodoo priests, you would not object?

I'm forced to conclude, if your view is representative (and I believe it is the view held by most Vatican II Roman Catholics) that Vatican II catholics truly cannot claim the “catholic” label for themselves any longer. The true Roman Catholics are the SSPXers and the sedevacantists like Gerry Matatics, who practice real catholicism (pre-Vatican II catholicism) and would never tolerate this sort of syncretism. But by first asserting that “it wasn't a consecrated altar—it was a table,” you're truly arguing like the Pharisees, who said that “If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.” Who cares whether the Buddha was placed on an altar or a table? The fact is, it occurred in the Franciscan basilica in Assisi. Don't Roman Catholics consider the basilica holy and dedicated to God? Have you ever wondered why an earthquake took place in Assisi in 1997?

Do you think that the “prayers” the heathen made at Assisi were truly prayers? According to St. Paul, “No, I mean that what they [the heathen] sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons.”

“It was not a consecrated altar. It was a table set up outside (there were several such 'prayer areas').”

“Even if it was an altar, it does not indicate that JP2 approved nor that he worshipped the buddha.”

“But it doesn't bother me that a pope attends a inter-religious prayer service for World Peace...”

I can't believe I'm hearing a Roman Catholic say this. (Actually, I'm not surprised at all!) So are you saying, Tiber Jumper, that if, for instance, your local parish priest were to hold an inter-religious “prayer” service inside your parish church with shamans, witch doctors, snake handlers, animists, Zoroastrians, Shintoists, Muslims, Buddhists, and voodoo priests, you would not object?

I'm forced to conclude, if your view is representative (and I believe it is the view held by most Vatican II Roman Catholics) that Vatican II catholics truly cannot claim the “catholic” label for themselves any longer. The true Roman Catholics are the SSPXers and the sedevacantists like Gerry Matatics, who practice real catholicism (pre-Vatican II catholicism) and would never tolerate this sort of syncretism. But by first asserting that “it wasn't a consecrated altar—it was a table,” you're truly arguing like the Pharisees, who said that “If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.” Who cares whether the Buddha was placed on an altar or a table? The fact is, it occurred in the Franciscan basilica in Assisi. Don't Roman Catholics consider the basilica holy and dedicated to God? Have you ever wondered why an earthquake took place in Assisi in 1997?

Do you think that the “prayers” the heathen made at Assisi were truly prayers? According to St. Paul, “No, I mean that what they [the heathen] sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons.”

“But it doesn't bother me that a pope attends a inter-religious prayer service for World Peace...”

I can't believe I'm hearing a Roman Catholic say this. (Actually, I'm not surprised at all!) So are you saying, that if your local parish priest were to hold an inter-religious “prayer” service inside your parish church with shamans, witch doctors, snake handlers, animists, Zoroastrians, Shintoists, Muslims, Buddhists, and voodoo priests, you would not object?

If your view is representative of most Vatican II Roman Catholics, then Vatican II catholics truly cannot claim the “catholic” label for themselves any longer. The true Roman Catholics are the SSPXers and the sedevacantists like Gerry Matatics, who practice real catholicism (pre-Vatican II catholicism) and would never tolerate this sort of syncretism. But by asserting that “it wasn't a consecrated altar—it was a table,” you're truly arguing like the Pharisees, who said that “If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.” Who cares whether the Buddha was placed on an altar or a table? The fact is, it occurred in the Franciscan basilica in Assisi. Don't Roman Catholics consider the basilica holy and dedicated to God? Have you ever wondered why an earthquake took place in Assisi in 1997?

Do you think that the “prayers” the heathen made at Assisi were truly prayers? According to St. Paul, “No, I mean that what they [the heathen] sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons.”

Ah Val, interesting to see a calvinist schismatic using the schismatic sedevacantist apology to denigrate the pope. Interesting, but still, just sophistry.

If our Holy Father John Paul 2 was a pedophile, it would not change the unbroken apostolic succession nor negate papal infallibility.The pope never caved regarding issues of faith and morals as all your leaders have. You use your own authority and biased world view to judge someone.

If it wasn't for the Catholic faith, the evangelical protestants like James Dobson would still be sitting on the fence about abortion. It took protestants ten years after roe vs wade to get involved. Why? Because they have no teaching authority from God to tell them abortion is wrong! So they looked to the catholic Church and read what Catholic moral teaching said about abortion.

Calvinists, Lutherans, and Anglicans (I'm speaking of those who hold to the faith and not liberal heretics) are no more schismatic than Elijah was when he opposed the prophets of Baal. Or Jeremiah was when he opposed the false religious leaders of his day.

Why do the SSPXers and sedevacantists call the Novus Ordo religion heretical? What do they know about the true RC religion that the Novus Ordo religion doesn't seem to get? They're the ones who are the earnest and devout Roman Catholics, after all. They're the ones who hold to the longstanding traditions of the RC church.

In one way, I admire Robert Sungenis, who has contradicted the Novus Ordo religion's claim that the Old Covenant is still valid and that what happened in Assisi in 1986 and 2002 was not rank idolatry.

But he's dead wrong that the truest Christian religion is Roman Catholicism.

The pope is not infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. What arrogance! Only God can claim infallibility.